UPSC – CSE Prelims 2023
INDIAN POLITY – SUPREME COURT
1. Consider the following statements:
Statement-I : The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
(a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
(b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
(c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
(d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
Answer: (c)
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgments that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for the maintenance of efficiency of administration: This statement is correct. The Supreme Court has indeed held in certain judgments that while reservation policies can be implemented under Article 16(4) to provide opportunities to backward classes, they should also be balanced with the consideration of maintaining the efficiency of administration, as stated in Article 335.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’: This statement is incorrect. Article 335 does not provide a specific definition of ‘efficiency of administration’. Instead, it emphasizes the need to balance the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) with the maintenance of efficiency in administration. Article 335 states that the claims of the SC/ST candidates should be taken into consideration in appointments and posts under the State, but without compromising the efficiency of administration.
UPSC – CSE Prelims 2019
INDIAN POLITY – SUPREME COURT
1. With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements :
- No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (d)
- Both the SC and HCs have the jurisdiction to question the validity of a constitutional amendment or a central law.
- Though the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 curtailed the judicial review power of high courts and debarred the high courts from considering the constitutional validity of any central law.
- However, the 43rd Amendment Act of 1978 restored the original position of the high courts and now the High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- High Courts have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
- As the Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution and so any constitutional amendment that is against the basic structure of the constitution which was derived in Keshava Nanda Bharti case, 1973 can be nullified by the Supreme Court.
INDIAN POLITY – SUPREME COURT
2. With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following ?
(a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.
(b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament.
(c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the president of India can declare financial Emergency without the counsel from the cabinet.
(d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.
Ans: (b)
SC poser to judge on Babri Masjid case trial deadline
In its 40-page judgment, the Supreme Court had invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142. It had evoked the maxim – ‘Let justice be done though the heavens fall.’
SC to review order on dowry cases
The order was passed by invoking the extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court to administer complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
INDIAN POLITY – SUPREME COURT
3. Consider the following statements:
- The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
- The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (b)
- The thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution of India; enacted on 10th August 1975, placed the election of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the Indian courts.
- It was passed during the Emergency of 1975–1977.
- This amendment act removed the authority of the Supreme Court to adjudicate petitions regarding elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
- Instead, a body constituted by Parliament would be vested with the power to resolve such election disputes.
- Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
- The ninety-ninth Constitutional Amendment of India would have established the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a body tasked with appointing judges to the higher judiciary in India.
- Article 124 of the Constitution was amended through the 99th Amendment to reflect the change in the system of appointments from the collegium system.
- But, in 2015, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court by 4:1 majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional.
- Hence, statement 2 is correct.
INDIAN POLITY – SUPREME COURT
4. Consider the following statements:
- The- motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what Constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
- The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2
(b) 3 only
(c) 3 and 4 only
(d) 1, 3 and 4
Ans: (c)
The correct answer is option 3, i.e 3 and 4 only.
- A judge of Supreme Court of India may be removed from office through a motion adopted by Parliament on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’.
- However, the Constitution of India does not define or provide any details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’. Hence, statement 2 is not correct.
- The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of impeachment. Hence, statement 3 is correct.
- The impeachment procedure of a Supreme Court judge is given below:
- A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman.
- The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it. Hence, statement 1 is not correct.
- If it is admitted, then the Speaker/Chairman is to constitute a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.
- The committee should consist of
- the chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court,
- a chief justice of a high court, and
- a distinguished jurist
- If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of proved misbehaviour or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the consideration of the motion.
- The address must be supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (i.e, a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting). Hence, statement 4 is correct.
- Finally, the President passes an order removing the judge.
- No judge of the Supreme Court has been impeached so far.
- Impeachment motions of Justice V Ramaswami (1991–1993) and the Justice Dipak Misra (2017-18) were defeated in the Parliament.